Appcelerator Blog

The Leading Resource for All Things Mobile

Thank you for your continued feedback with our latest release (3.2.0). We want to share with you some issues you’ve helped us identify, relevant workarounds, and what we are doing to ultimately resolve them.

1) Issue: Device build fails for Android on a Windows machine

This issue occurs because we packaged a dynamic linked version of Visual C++ libraries versus the static linked version. This means if you do not have the Visual C++ runtime libraries installed, your build will fail.

2) Issue: Alloy created applications on 3.1.3 or earlier SDK must be upgraded to 3.2.0 SDK before being able to successfully build.

This issue occurred because Appcelerator changed where resource directories located in Titanium Studio.

Workarounds: You can either update your application to work with 3.2.0, revert back to Alloy 1.3.0, or you can use our beta version of Alloy 1.3.1 which fixes this issue.

npm install –g alloy@1.3.0

npm install –g alloy@1.3.1-beta3

3) Issue: Getting “Permission Denied” when running Android Emulator

This issue is when attempting to access native features such as camera or vibrate, you see “Permission Denied”. This is because the permissions are not in the androidManifest.xml.

Workarounds: Develop using a physical device or you could also use the CLI to perform a build-only device build and manually install the generated apk into the emulator

ti build -p android -T device --build-only

adb -e install build/android/bin/.apk

We are currently working on 3.2.1 that will include resolution to these issues that will be released in the coming weeks. We apologize for any inconvenience that these issues may have caused you. If you have run into the problems stated above, please follow the suggested workarounds.

@hangn: Exactly. That is the exact problem the visual c++ runtime libraries will fix.

Rob

Posted January 20, 2014 @ 7:52 am

Hello there,
After compiling an iOS app with the new 3.2.0 SDK, containing a ScollableView with about a hundred images, the app crashes due to a memory leak. This didn’t happen with the old 3.1.3. SDK…what has changed?

I have several issues with the new version of Titanium. Let’s start with the first.

I installed 3.2.0 on a clean computer (Windows 8 i7 16GB) – reset to its factory defaults. Titanium was the first application to be installed.

Where is the default emulator that is mentioned in the Titanium website documents? It was not created. It had been created with previous versions of Titanium.

I attempted this installation multiple times – each time resetting the computer to its default so that I could be sure the starting point was the same.

Ingo Muschenetz

Posted February 3, 2014 @ 1:39 pm

Many people have long wished the default Android emulators storage size was larger, or that they came with different default settings. Since we automatically created emulators for each configuration, any increase in the default size would consume a significant amount of hard drive disk space. Instead, for 3.2.0, for the new users in Studio, we create one emulator, and allow the user to create new emulators as they wish.

If you had been upgrading from 3.1.3, you would have seen the list of previously created emulators to choose from.

Since one was not created, my guess is that you are a CLI user. We are updating the CLI documentation to make it clearer that the user will need to create one, and we apologize for any confusion that may have caused.

ellian

Posted February 3, 2014 @ 7:37 pm

No, I am not a CLI user.

I first attempted to upgrade from 3.1.3 to 3.2.0. That was a disaster! Nothing would compile cleaning that had previously done so – no I am not using Alloy (I read the document).

I was then forced to reset my computer back to factory defaults. Wiped completely clean like it just came out of the box.

I downloaded the Titanium_Studio.exe and ran it. I followed the instructions. The result was no default Android emulator created.

Thinking that I may have done something wrong…. I wiped the computer again and reinstalled again with the same results.

When I created my own emulator, it ran about 10 times slower than the previous emulator that was created with 3.1.3. I assume this was a result of HAX not being found.

This is not the only issue. The online documentation indicates specific directories where Java and nodejs should be installed. However, the install program does not follow that document and installs them elsewhere.

The complete Android SDK is not installed.

After installing, creating an emulator, and a small program for creating a tableview (source copied directly from the appcelerator online document), the console indicates “ERROR Could not find class ‘ti.modules.titanium.ui.widget.searchview.TiUISearchView….”

So, as you can see, there are several issues with 3.2.0. Did anyone even bother to install on a new computer to test it and read the online documents?

I would really like to use this product, but the support does not exist and the online documents are incorrect. I have spent more time trying to get the system to work than actually programming. I am not new to development.

If you want this product to be used, much better documentation must be provided and better support available. I will not pay for support unless I can be sure the product can even be installed correctly.

Ingo Muschenetz

Posted February 10, 2014 @ 9:43 am

Ellian,

Thank you for your helpful feedback. I understand your annoyance, and if this is the experience you had, you have reason to be frustrated.

We’ve addressed a number of issues in 3.2.1. A few comments and responses that will help us fix the remaining items.

1) For the issue with not creating an emulator, my apologies. This was addressed in 3.2.1 as part of TISTUD-5663.

2) 3.1.3 does not create an accelerated emulator by default–you’d have to choose that option specifically. When you created your own emulator, did you choose an accelerated option? However, 3.2.1 and 3.1.3 should create identical emulators from a speed perspective.

3) The locations of the files we listed above was a suggested location from when there was an issue with spaces in paths. We’ve been able to address that and will update the docs to match what Studio installs.

4) Do you have a link to the example you used?

Bruce Sauls

Posted May 4, 2014 @ 6:12 pm

I had a serious issue with the 3.2.0 install. I am running Windows 7 on an SSD, with my documents folder on another drive. On install, my Documents folder with the remote location was replaced with a plain Documents folder and the workspace was set up on the C: drive. Perhaps this behavior could be prevented by having the installer use a windows system shortcut to the documents folder.